VE HSV's 0-100km/h in less than 5 seconds!

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by JEM

How about we wait and see what they do in the real world on the same day in the same conditions as the FPV's before believing what the HSV spin doctors say?

Exactly right, im yet to EVER see a HSV reproduce HSV's performance claims back to back against a BF. Even on chassis dyno's the Boss powered cars hold their own against HSV's. 9 times out of 10 back to back tests seem to show a much closer result.

[freaky]

Originally Posted by BLACK XR6-VCT

That is VERY intersting!

Maybe the new FPV BFII lineup will be something like:

TIER1:

Typhoon 270kw
GT 290kw


TIER2:

Force 6 305kw
Force 8 335kw

The GTP may get the chop?

Do they really need more power ? My stock F6 scares the crap out of me as it is.

i guess DSC will not be able to be retrofitted if it is released with Mkii.

I would be willing to pay to have this fitted on my f6.

[BadMac]

Originally Posted by BLACK XR6-VCT

Intersting info about the claimed new 307kW:

The 307kW is a DIN measurement. The 297 is/was SAE or ECE measurement. 297kW ECE is actually 305kW DIN. I don't think the HSV has gained 10kW I think it's more like 1kw, but by quoting the DIN (which is perfectly acceptable) they are able to legitimately quote 307kW.
From memory there was this argumet a few years back with FPV who were quoting 290kW DIN which was more like 283kW ECE for their GT.

The fact that there are multiple standards causes much confusion.

hp (DIN)
DIN horsepower is the power measured according to the German standard DIN 70020. It is measured at the flywheel, and is in practical terms equivalent to the SAE net figure. Because the test conditions are so similar, it is safe to divide DIN horsepower by 1.0139 to arrive at SAE net. This value is so close to equal that for all but the most technical purposes DIN and SAE net are interchangeable.

hp (ECE)
ECE R24 is another standard for measuring net horsepower. It is quite similar to the DIN 70020 standard, but the requirement for connecting an engine's fan during testing varies. ECE is seen as slightly more liberal than DIN, and ECE figures tend to be slightly higher than DIN.

Therefore:
297KW (SAE) = 301KW (DIN) NOT 305KW !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
297KW (ECE) greater than 297KW DIN (see bolded bit in last paragraph).

The upshot is that DIN appears to be a better standard and now allows direct comparision between Ford and Holden. That said Holden now use ECE figures so why are HSV using DIN?

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by BadMac

297KW (SAE) = 301KW (DIN) NOT 305KW !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
297KW (ECE) greater than 297KW DIN (see bolded bit in last paragraph).

The upshot is that DIN appears to be a better standard and now allows direct comparision between Ford and Holden. That said Holden now use ECE figures so why are HSV using DIN?

Are you sure?
HSV themselves directly quoted VZ @ 297kw or 305KW DIN, so which of those 2 figures is accurate?

[2kool4u]

Originally Posted by ADSF6

This is claimed by HSV.

Dont forget HSV also claimed a manual GTO did a 4.99 0-100 and 13.2 quarter. Subsequently, in this years PCOTY, the GTO did a 6.4 and 14.3something.

MOTOR magazine managed to get a 4.99 0-100km from the GTO.

[HSE2]

Originally Posted by BadMac

The fact that there are multiple standards causes much confusion.

Therefore:
297KW (SAE) = 301KW (DIN) NOT 305KW !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
297KW (ECE) greater than 297KW DIN (see bolded bit in last paragraph).

That said Holden now use ECE figures so why are HSV using DIN?

It doesn't matter what the calculations come up with unless you can contact HSV and get a straight answer. Then and only then will this line of thought be beneficial. HSV claimed and still continue to claim 305 DIN kws for VZ -that’s the bottom line. It s not us making it up and no one was trying to down play the claim at the time as everyone assumed HSV knew what they were talking about. I think we all know the claim to be full of holes by dynos around the country not showing the claim to have merrit but that's not the point. HSV are too good at making such marketing moves.

When the subject is a manufacturer’s product the only reference of note is what they claim to be fact. If you can get HSV to print a retraction then you have a story to tell, until then we will continue to quote manufacturer specs as they have been quoted to us.

That being said the only language we are interested in is real world times, and I suspect HSV will deliver because they appear to spend greater effort trying to achieve these benchmarks.

On your other point I am with you. Something about this doesn’t sound right given what has been printed in the media and used by Holden. I am still sceptical about what they are using.

[charles_wif_xf]

Pfflt! HSV.

What about all the stock 'phoons coming out of Broadmeadows being able to peel of sub-13sec times with the ZF auto?

[4Vman]

Originally Posted by charles_wif_xf

Pfflt! HSV.

What about all the stock 'phoons coming out of Broadmeadows being able to peel of sub-12sec times with the ZF auto?

I suspect you mean sub 13's... the best time for a F6 ive heard of is 12.9, low 13's seems about std.

[charles_wif_xf]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

I suspect you mean sub 13's... the best time for a F6 ive heard of is 12.9, low 13's seems about std.

Just corrected it.

[colossus]

Originally Posted by 2kool4u

MOTOR magazine managed to get a 4.99 0-100km from the GTO.

No they didn't - HSV supplied the time, it was published in an article by MOTOR it was not tested by MOTOR :

[4Vman]

1/4 mile times and 0-100 times can be frustratingly inacurate at times, HSV have been big at making claims that no one else seems to be able to reproduce in the real world, id say their times come from sticky tracks with perfect air temp etc etc.. FPV are vague and concervative on theirs.
The only real meaningful numbers come from back to back tests where the cars are compared on the same track, same weather conditions, same drivers etc, these figures are more meaningful than manufacturers "best possible effort on a sticky track in perfect weather conditions" times....

[ThoR_]

it`s a commodore who cares

[M14A-Mclaren]

I can see FPV sticking with the 290 and not changing anything in terms of power.

[BadMac]

Guys, the sub 5 second 0-100 may or may not be proven in real world tests.

However, given Motor (using their own gear, at lang lang) peeled of a 5.36 in damp conditions in a SS. Its not a big stretch to see HSV take off 0.36 seconds given:
1/ a dry well surfaced (sticky drag strip) track
2/ lower diff ratios than SS
3/ more power and more torque than SS
4/ DSC which, while not launch control, is tuned to allow aggressive take offs by letting some wheel spin occur but balancing traction and power application.
5/ a strong desire to lay claim to being a member of "the elite 4 second club".
6/ decent suspension allowing better power down.

We will know soon enough, everybody will be trying to prove the times. Don't be surprised to see them not just equaled but bettered. Otherwise HSV will take a lot of s**t in the media.

[BadMac]

Originally Posted by ThoR_

it`s a commodore who cares

Dude, don't waste your time reading these threads. Some of us appreciate cars, innovation and the fact that at least we can dicuss Australian made cars. If it was only Ford flying the flag it wouldn't be long before the flag was at half mast (the upstream industries are only just surviving with the current combined volumes). :

[FPV]

I am currently doubting the MRC system. I mean sure Ferrari managed to work it for the 599 and Audi have got it in there TT, but they aren't exactly high performance sedans. They might brag about it being in a corvette, but thats only in the base ls2 model, why not in the z06 if it was that great and as i've stated for awhile the STS-V went to monotube shockers after they found the Magna-ride system could not be developed to a satisfactory level for there high performance sedan, although that was released in 2004. Also the upcoming RS6 might not have the magna-ride suspension implemented either, if you read around the right forums. If HSV have mastered the Magna-ride system, congratulations to them, they have done a world-first for a high performance sedan. However i think theres also a chance of an underdone system being released for namesake. It was great how they included the RS4 in there Australia vs Germany advertisement and put "NO" to the MRC system, obviously ignoring that the RS4 has its own DRC system(Dynamic Ride Control), not the same system, but an adaptive suspension none the less.

Does anyone else think this is the biggest load of crap that Holden and HSV have decided to release 0-100kmh times, yet havent coped anything for it. I mean the Typhoon coped flak before it was even released for having an additional 30nm of torque over the GT. Holden using the excuse that they had to release them because the times were so great is an unacceptable excuse.

[HSE2]

Originally Posted by FPV

It was great how they included the RS4 in there Australia vs Germany advertisement and put "NO" to the MRC system, obviously ignoring that the RS4 has its own DRC system(Dynamic Ride Control), not the same system, but an adaptive suspension none the less.

I was going to say the same thing on the LS1 forum when the topic of the score card was raised. I think it’s an e card

Wheels have basically said MRC is impressive with the short drive impression of a senator mule

[HSE2]

After reading much of the wheels articles on VE V8s it’s clear that Ford have a problem with the Boss engine. The Holden six appears vulnerable but the opinion on the Holden V8 is very clear. With the HSV V8 they claim that even more air has been put between it and the FPV GT more then the 10 kw gain would indicate.

The bottom line seems to indicate VE HSV is something FPV should be very concerned about.

[BadMac]

Heres the drive video of them testing the Senator. They spend some time on MRC.

http://media.drive.com.au/?rid=21221...3&flash=1&ie=1

[FPV]

Originally Posted by HSE2

I was going to say the same thing on the LS1 forum when the topic of the score card was raised. I think it’s an e card

Wheels have basically said MRC is impressive with the short drive impression of a senator mule

Yep your right, my mistake. It was indeed an e card. I wonder where FPV are with an adaptive suspension though, hopefully not too far behind. HSV do however deserve credit for pushing the bar higher, FPV will probably wait for the sales to drop to 0 before they do something again.

[Falcon Coupe]

Originally Posted by JEM

FPV will have what seems to be a pretty congested lineup with these new models also?

It will be interesting to see where they sit..

Force6 - higher output/performance version of the Typhoon but sits lower than GTP in terms of pricing?

Force8 - higher output/performance of GT but sits above everything?

Interesting...

Who said anything about higher output for the Force 6/8 ?

[JPFS1]

I am very skeptical about the advertised outputs.

[JPFS1]

Originally Posted by Falcon Coupe

Who said anything about higher output for the Force 6/8 ?

Nobody - that post was all speculation.

It seems nobody knows for sure what these Force 6/8 cars will be.

[HSE2]

Originally Posted by FPV

Yep your right, my mistake. It was indeed an e card. I wonder where FPV are with an adaptive suspension though, hopefully not too far behind. HSV do however deserve credit for pushing the bar higher, FPV will probably wait for the sales to drop to 0 before they do something again.

Well the wheels article is pretty depressing on the FPV front, but initial impressions tend to be very positive for the E series. They were invited to drive mules so they could be the first of the hard copy reviews.

Adaptive suspension is probably one of the last remaining obstacles that separate these cars from the rest of the world. This route should have been obvious as soon as HSV started playing with Ohlins. FPV haven't offered the basic adjustable set up so its hard to imagine it being on their radar and given the other areas they have fallen behind in, and the fact they have to build their own engine I doubt there is a budget for it. HSV still have to convince their buyers this direction is worth it. According to the reviewer switching modes does provide a difference in ride handling and steering quality. That’s half the battle won. If you can demonstrate it to be different the better part can be argued another day.

The MRC has been at the expense of some other technical advances that I was led to believe would be in E series. Although they now appear to be suggesting that the grange will have further advances, so I guess time will tell.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by JEM

Nobody - that post was all speculation.

It seems nobody knows for sure what these Force 6/8 cars will be.

Yes they do.....

But there is an embago.

[Falcon Coupe]

Originally Posted by flappist

Yes they do.....

But there is an embago.

Enforced by Master/Blaster......... :Up_to_som

[JPFS1]

Originally Posted by flappist

Yes they do.....

But there is an embago.

Well here's hoping they live up to the suggested name.

[HSE2]

Originally Posted by Falcon Coupe

Who said anything about higher output for the Force 6/8 ?

If you walk into your FPV dealership and say you want to order a Force 6 or Force 8 they will be able to show you the information they have. They have a basic idea of what the product is but don’t have all the specifics until closer to the 26 of Oct

[HSE2]

I just read on the LS1 forum where Tuna dynoed a Ve SS to have 230 rwkws. Didn't see if that was a manual or an auto but I think we all know what that translates to.

[JPFS1]

Originally Posted by HSE2

I just read on the LS1 forum where Tuna dynoed a Ve SS to have 230 rwkws. Didn't see if that was a manual or an auto but I think we all know what that translates to.

Yes i saw that too Ian and that's why i posted my speculative thoughts on the SS and HSV advertised output. 15% drivelibe efficiency??? I highly doubt that. They must be close to the 300kW mark at SS level.